Laserfiche WebLink
He asked for more information. Mr. Braud said the company was concerned about its favorable lease from <br />Diamond Parking and it would like to remain in its current location for a while to receive the benefit of the <br />lease rate; the company also made some building improvements it had to pay for and that it did not want to <br />walk away from. The company also wanted to retain its current existing surface parking, although most of <br />the company’s business was off-site home installations. He was not sure surface parking was critical to the <br />business’ survival at that location. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling agreed with City Manager pro tem Jones that the public benefit of offering the purchase offers <br />would be recovering the City’s investment, and a favorable return would be recovering all of it. He said it <br />appeared that everyone was waiting for the details of the Beam proposal so he thought making the purchase <br />options available was a good idea and liked the idea of offering them to the tenants first, followed by a <br />general offering. He thought there was momentum for development downtown, as illustrated by the <br />discussions that occurred during the ballot measure campaign. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling recalled his interest in including the Roberts/Taco Time building in the initial West Broadway <br />development proposal but believed if the City offered the options it would have essentially the same effect. <br /> <br />th <br />Mr. Zelenka determined from Mr. Braud that the Bradford’s building was not included in the 10 Avenue <br />and Charnelton RFP. Mr. Braud said the City had referenced its control of the surface parking lot in the <br />RFP but did not market the Bradford’s building as part of the RFP. The goal was to offer a complete half- <br />th <br />block. Mr. Zelenka asked if it was possible to include parking for the business in the 10 and Charnelton <br />RFP to allow it to maintain the limited amount of parking it had. Mr. Braud said the City did not know the <br />nature of the parking need for what would be constructed; he pointed out that it could be underground. Mr. <br />Zelenka suggested that staff, through the RFP, could ask respondents to discuss how they would replace <br />Bradford’s parking. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka confirmed with Mr. Braud that all the options were voluntarily negotiated with the owners, who <br />agreed to the prices paid. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said the City had $344,000 invested in the purchase options, and if the City could recover all or <br />most of that money or even make money, it would be great. He asked City Attorney Klein to speak to the <br />restrictions Ms. Bettman mentioned. City Attorney Klein thought the City could accomplish those things <br />legally through a separate agreement that followed the property, but he would have to check with his firm’s <br />real estate expert. He said such an agreement would have to be carefully crafted, and if the council gave <br />him direction, he would attempt to do so. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said demolition of the building with the goal of immediate redevelopment would be acceptable, <br />but he did not want to see an empty site. He thought the action contemplated by the council was in keeping <br />with the message he received from the public’s vote in regard to a reduced government role in downtown <br />development. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked Beam’s progress in reassessing the Center Court Building. Mr. Braud said the company <br />was moving forward with the project and was talking to potential tenants. Engineers had gone over the <br />space but he had heard nothing negative as a result of those studies. Everything he had heard was <br />encouraging. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon thought restricting people in what they could do was a “real low vision” approach. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />